Where Failure Succeeds and Success Fails

In the narrative of real life situations, the Jewish version of “Alice in Wonderland” has it that you fail by succeeding, and succeed by failing. The people who saw a series of Israeli military successes for being kicked out of the Sinai, the Eastern Golan, Gaza and South Lebanon now see failure in winning battles without firing a shot. It is that in the upside-down vision of these people, Israel and the “West” win when they exchange fire with someone even if they get wiped out in the process. And they lose when they obtain what they want without firing a shot.

John Bolton is one of those endowed with an upside-down vision caused by a brain that is installed upside-down. You can see how he perceives the real life version of his Alice in Wonderland when you read the article he wrote under the title: “How Rouhani Is Playing Obama” and the subtitle: “His conciliation strategy is intended to buy time and legitimacy to build a bomb.” It was published on September 30, 2013 in the Wall Street Journal.

By the time you reach the middle of the article, you get a sense of the force that is aggravating the John Bolton handicap. That's because he builds up to this passage: “Mr. Obama enters negotiations weakened by his Syria failures. He seems unaware he has been wounded. He believes he is well placed to treat with the ayatollahs despite a series of foreign-policy failures.” Had Mr. Obama fired missiles at Syria, doing no better than kill scores of civilians, Bolton and those like him would have lauded the commander-in-chief as a great leader made in the image of the great W. Bush. But the fact that Syria gave up its chemical weapons without firing a shot registers as a failure in the eyes of the mutants who grew up with an upside-down brain.

And when someone grows up deformed to this grotesque extent, he sees the future that hasn't come yet with fear and trepidation every time he hears of peace not every time he hears of war. And this is what the rest of the Bolton article is about. Here is how he begins the journey of fear: “last week President Obama embarked on a campaign for 'progress' with Iran that will prove dangerous for American interests.” And Bolton tells you why so: “after an Obama-Rouhani telephone call, Mr. Obama said that a 'comprehensive solution' is possible.” Oh my goodness, how awful is that!

Still, you ask: How did Obama come to this conclusion? And Bolton tells you how: “Instead of blustering about Iran's nuclear program, Mr. Rouhani has sounded conciliatory.” Why is that so bad? you want to know. And he tells you why: “Over the past year, Mr. Obama failed to grasp that agreements with the likes of Syria and Russia [presumably Iran too] prolong, rather than solve the chemical-weapons problem.” Wow! The man with an upside-down brain does not like it that Syria gave up its chemical weapons. And now he wants us to believe it will be disastrous if Iran proves it does not have a military nuclear program. What's this world coming to?

You are so flabbergasted by now, you scream at him: “Why would this be so disastrous?” And he tells you why: “Even if there were some prospect that Iran could be talked out of its nuclear-weapons program, the White House approach is the wrong way to start discussions. Given the president's unwillingness to use the military; Iran knows that the 'all options are on the table' incantation carries no weight.” In other words, the only thing that will work, according to Bolton, is the talk of war followed by a “shock and awe” campaign. That's how you avoid disaster, he wants you to believe, because you can look at Iraq and see what a model nation can rise on the charred bodies of victims that get blown up almost on a daily basis. What a pretty sight this must be to someone as sick as these people are.

And now he does the thing that every Jew does at the end of a presentation; he blows his own argument to smithereens. Look at this: “Iran wants relief from international sanctions, which have exacerbated decades of incompetent economic policy.” What he says is that the Iranians have been incompetent managers of their economy for decades, and that the sanctions made things worse for them. Okay, you say, but it must be that the economy has collapsed. NO, no, no, he says: “There is no evidence that the sanctions have impaired Iran's nuclear or ballistic-missile programs. Instead, Tehran has increased its financial and military assistance to Assad and Hezbollah in Syria.”

Well, come on now, Johnny the blower of hot air. When a nation is subjected to this kind of sanctions, yet manages to maintain a viable economy is proof of genius. When on top of that, the nation maintains its military program in top shape, and assists its allies as well, it proves to be blessed with economic miracle workers. And only an upside-down brain such as yours would see this performance as incompetent.

Poor Johnny; having displayed his low caliber for all to see, the man now decides to play the role of prophet. And so he begins his round of future-telling like this: “Mr. Rouhani's strategy is clear: make cosmetic concessions and gain Western acceptance. Once that goal is attained, the path to nuclear weapons will be unobstructed.” But that's only the beginning because after that: “Iran will demand that sanctions be eased. Western diplomats will assert that these concessions are a matter of 'sequencing,' and that they expect Iranian concessions. They will wait a long time [because] once sanctions start, restoring them will be hard to do absent a provocation that Rouhani will not supply.”

Did you get that, my friend? John Bolton predicts that things will go so smoothly, Iran will not provoke, and the “West” will not be provoked. This may sound like a good thing to you and me, but to a mutant with an upside-down brain, it must sound like horror.

Pity these people; they live their own hell right here on Earth. But we must not let them drive the agenda because we have our own lives to live, and we don't want that to be hellish.

Meet the Two Co-Presidents of America

America is run by two presidents. One is called Barack Obama, and he heads the executive branch of the government. The other is called Benjamin Netanyahu, and he heads a legislative branch that is embodied in the form of a congress. It is made of members known to the public as being the assembly of male and female bimbos who pretend to legislate but do nothing different from the work of professional prostitutes.

This arrangement of the American government is different from what the founding fathers of the Republic first cobbled together. When discussing the difference between what was meant to be and what really is, some people say that the president of the executive branch has acquired so much power that he governs like an imperial president. But to tell you the truth, while this emperor may still have his clothes on, he was stripped naked of his executive powers by the legislative branch.

Meanwhile, all those powers have been diverted to and vested in the legislative branch that did the stripping in the first place. Thus, while Barack Obama who owns the bully pulpit and knows how to use it can still be seen to throw his weight around, Netanyahu has the power to make certain that he lands on a bed of thorns should he deviate from the service of Israel of which Netanyahu is prime minister. Presiding over the assembly of American bimbos, this foreigner sits on a slew of parliamentary tricks that were fabricated by Jewish moles and Israeli agents operating in America. He and his aids employ those tricks to paralyze and gridlock the business of the American people to pass the laws that serve the foreign entity of Israel.

To show his supremacy over the executive branch, Netanyahu transmutes himself into the body of a pissing dog before visiting the White House that is the temporary house of Obama. Once there, he gets onto the rug and does what comes naturally to a dog, and that is to pee on the rug. He has done it a few times previously, after which he went to meet his male and female bimbos who received him like a hero, a god and a savior.

At a meeting on one of those occasions, the gathered bimbos gave him 29 standing ovations representing the 21 gun salutes that are usually given to a dead hero – plus 8 more. Once a mystery, the 8 extra ovations turned out to have been caused by the inability of the bimbos to count to 21 given the Jewish syphilis of ambiguous moral clarity that is constantly being pumped into their skulls.

Well, my friend, once again Benjamin Netanyahu will be in the American capital tomorrow, and the indications are that he will be given the red carpet treatment. But after the reception, he will be taken to where the white rug covers the floor. And it is there that the dog will get the urge to pee, thus the question that is on everyone's lips: Will he pee or will he not? To paraphrase a talented man that roamed this planet long ago: to pee or not to pee? That is the question.

My guess is that he is now in such a bind, he will not pee. Yes, being in a bind is a reason practical enough to restrain him from pissing. But there is another reason that is even more practical than that. It is that he was shown to have been castrated thus rendered an impotent eunuch who, for a very long time, has managed to pretend he was a high performing stud.

And when a eunuch is transmuted into a dog, he turns out to be a neutered dog. And this means that once on the white rug, Netanyahu will have nothing to pee with. Thus, the question: To pee or not to pee becomes irrelevant – as irrelevant, in fact, as Netanyahu himself to the scheme of things that matter most to the human race. Still, he can misbehave in other ways, thus the need to warn him in no uncertain terms.

Keep that thing on a short leash, Mr. President of the Executive, it is your responsibility to see to it that he behaves appropriately, and respects the sanctity of the house that invited him in.

For him to behave appropriately is also important so that the rest of the world will be inclined to maintain a healthy respect for America. Otherwise they will all want to imitate him, and you'll be blamed for the loss of respect.

Eagles Turned Vultures, Jackals Turned Lions

Imagine yourself watching a National Geographic episode on television, showing life in Africa's Serengeti Desert where a pack of jackals have brought down a small antelope. They are feeding on it when all of a sudden an eagle appears in the sky above. Sensing instinctively what is about to happen, the Jackals move a safe distance away from the prey and watch the eagle swoop down on the carcass. It takes it up into the sky and disappears behind the blue yonder of the firmament for, this is what eagles do.

Just as you're about to turn off the television set, a flash of light blinds you and causes you to fall back on the couch. The next thing you know is that you're waking up from a deep sleep feeling dizzy. You're still on the same couch but a few things have changed around you. For one thing, you feel older than before, so you look at the television screen and discover that you are watching a different episode of National Geographic. You know that time has passed but you don't know how much time. You switch to the channel that displays the time and date where you discover that a generation has passed.

You return to the National Geographic channel where you see that lions – not jackals – have brought down a big wildebeest, not a small antelope. They are feeding on it while a flock of vultures on the ground – not eagles in the sky – are keeping themselves at a safe distance away from the banquet of the lions. The vultures are motionless, waiting for the lions to have their fill and move away so that they may go in and feed on the few morsels that the lions may have left behind.

Being the intelligent person that you are, you recognize this occurrence as being a metaphor representing the world in the way that it has developed during the past generation. The games are bigger now, and so are the hunters. As to the eagles of yesteryear, they have become the vultures of today. They do not take what they want when they want it like they used to do; they now scrounge in dangerous places looking for the leftovers that will appease their hunger and sustain them till they find their next meal.

You think about it with a mix of sorrow and nostalgia, and wish that everyone would see life the way you do now. But you realize this is not what is happening because there are people in this world who still refuse to believe that the world has changed. They do not know they need to adapt to the new reality lest they be eaten alive, and so they sit like a prey waiting to be hunted down. One of these people is Jackson Diehl who writes a column for the Washington Post. He wrote one under the title: “Obama's myopic worldview” and had it published in the Post on September 26, 2013.

It is obvious from the title that Jackson Diehl is describing the quarrel he is having with President Barack Obama with regard to the current state of the world. As you begin to read the article, you quickly realize that this is a quarrel between Barack the man and Jackson the boy. It is the worldview of an adult that is challenged by the worldview of a child who refuses to grow up.

In fact, you get a sense that you are hearing a child say he heard mom and dad say this and that the other day. But you know this cannot be true because you know that adults do not talk like that. You realize there may be some truth in what the child is saying but that his small mind and his imagination have created an entirely new situation from the reality to which he was exposed. Thus, you conclude that the worldview described by the boy Jackson is nothing but a collage of stereotypes made up by the Jewish organizations, and propagated by the active members of the various echo chambers in America.

But then the boy surprises you. Wham! He hits you in the face with the following: “This [Obama's] definition of stability requires ignoring all that would disturb it.” It is as if he did not believe a word of what he was saying while saying it. He is now admitting that some form of stability does exist, but it is one that he does not like. So then, what does he do to attack it? He finds an angle to do just that. He says the stability can be disturbed in the future by forces that are not here, but forces that can materialize down the road. And here too, you realize that this is the influence of the false prophets who predict future apocalypses when they fail to scare you in the present.

But what is it that the boy Jackson wants from the man Barack? Well, he begins by reminding him of the promise he once made: “He [Obama] defined a new set of 'core principles' that the United States would defend in the Middle East, including free speech...” Hey kid, yes you the boy Jackson, let me tell you what you need to do first. You need to work on securing free speech in America before trying to implement it where it is not hindered. Have you heard of someone being blacklisted for half a century because he dared long ago to write an article under the title: Don't listen to propaganda, Egypt is a civilized country? This sort of thing happens here in North America where the Jews are masters, and people like you are but echo repeaters in the service of repeating every piece of crap they stuff into your mouth.

Cover your nakedness, kid before you tell someone else they need to wear different attire. And for God's sake, don't run around saying things like: “As Egyptians and Syrians can testify...” These people will testify to what they want when they want it. They don't need a loser like you practicing your kind of fabricated hearsay in their name at their expense.

Get that, kid? If not, you better try hard because the next thing you know is that you'll wake up from your sleep older by a generation, and find that the lions are munching on you and those like you.

WSJ Thinks Rouhani Running for Congress

When reading the editorial in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) of September 28, 2013, you may be forgiven for believing that those editors think Mr. Hasan Rouhani was running for the Congress of the United States of America. And your astonishment will be understood given that the man was recently elected President of Iran. The Journal editorial in question came under the title: “CNN's Tehran Translation” and the subtitle: “The network relied on an Iranian government interpreter.”

That piece of work pertains to a quarrel that the editors are having with Ms. Christiane Amanpour of CNN regarding the accuracy of a translation done by her network. I discussed the subject in my previous article and shall refrain from repeating myself here. What interests me this time, however, is the approach that the editors of the Journal are taking. It is typical of what the Jewish organizations do when they blackmail someone that is running for office. Directly or indirectly, to help the candidate or to hinder his efforts, the Jews get involved in the campaign early on, and make him walk in a minefield of ambiguities they call field of moral clarity.

To get a sense of the game they play, it helps to remember the English saying: Six of one or half a dozen of the other, what's the difference? Likewise, there is no issue that these people will not jumble and confuse to make it so that if you say “six,” they will holler their pain and accuse you of antisemitism. If you ask how they came to such conclusion, they will say you should have said “half a dozen.” And it goes without saying that if you had said half a dozen; they would have insisted you should have said six to prove that you're not antisemitic.

A recent example of this is when they accused someone running for a high office of being antisemitic for saying the “Jewish lobby.” Even though this is what they have been saying for half a century, they insisted this time that he should have said “Israeli lobby.” And needless to say that if he had said Israeli lobby, they would have accused him of seeking to strip Israel of its “Jewishness,” which would indicate that he was antisemitic at heart.

So how did they play the game this time in the context of the row they are having with CNN? Well, the target here is Mr. Rouhani of Iran who is on a charm offensive trying to prove to the world, including the Americans, that he and his country should not be feared because all they want to do is forge normal relations with everyone else. When Rouhani started making gains in this regard, the Jewish lobby unleashed a smear campaign against him and his country, but the lobbyists lost and were forced to admit, as they did in their latest editorial, that they were standing on shaky grounds.

They did not come right out and said so honestly because if they did, they would have had to apologize to someone. Instead, they admitted in their own subtle way that they stood on shaky grounds but (and there is a but) they pulled another Jewish trick while making the admission. Look at this sleight of hand and marvel at their skill: “The point may seem small to Western ears, but [here is their BUT] it's significant in the context of a regime for which Holocaust denial is an article of ideological faith.” By this, they mean to say that even if they could not prove Rouhani denied the Holocaust this time, he and his country are guilty as charged. So then, how did they try to prove this point?

This is how they tried: “Ditto for the second comment: Rouhani did not speak narrowly of Nazi crimes against the Jews, but more broadly of crimes 'against the Jews and non-Jews.'” In other words, speaking in the name of the Jewish organizations, the editors of the WSJ have now formulated a new definition for what is a denier of the Holocaust. It is someone who refuses to single out the Jews as being the possible target of victimization by lumping them with the rest of humanity. If he is not guilty for saying six, he is guilty for saying half a dozen.

And this has prompted the editors of the Journal to exclaim no, no, no, followed by an explanation as to why: “This distinction is also important, because central to the claims of Holocaust revisionists is the lie that Jews were not the deliberate and principal target of Nazi genocide.” Whoa! Do you see that word revisionist stuck in there, my friend? It indicates that with the new definition of what is a Holocaust denier, comes a new politico-cultural religion that is based on a dogma. And this dogma says that to revise history is to be scholarly but to revise Jewish history is to commit a damnable offense. And they made it clear, over and over again, that this offense subjects the offender to being bombed into the stone age, a demand they have been trying to force the Americans to carry out against Iran.

The problem of this pathetic bunch is that they are only now sensing they lost the battle. This forced them to treat Mr. Rouhani not as the pariah they have tried to say he was, but as the important personality that is out there seeking to win support for his campaign. And this means they have no alternative but to try and walk him into the minefield of ambiguities they call moral clarity. This is what they believe they can do but to the rest of the world, the story is entirely different.

In the eyes of the world, the minefield is the charge of antisemitism; the ambiguities are reflected in the interplay between outright denier of the Holocaust and revisionist of history; the moral clarity is that no matter which way history unfolds, the Jewish leaders will always manage to turn the people who follow them into perennial losers.

Cannot Squeeze Blood out of Stone

If you try to get blood out of a stone, what you'll get instead is a substance that will be as toxic as the chemicals of which the stone is made. The same goes for the word Holocaust, a noun that the Jews have turned into a proper name to make the event proper to themselves, thus be able to exploit it exclusively.

Despite the toxicity, the Jewish leaders who benefit from the exploitation of the Holocaust believe that they get out of the exercise more than enough to offset what they lose in the process – and what they lose is twofold. They lose because they trivialize the event that caused the Jews who preceded them to suffer. And they lose because each time they pull the stunt; they need to involve their friends who get diminished in the process. This causes the friends to rethink the relationship they have had with all Jews.

The way to exploit a word is to raise an artificial fuss about its meaning or the way it was used or the way it was translated from another language. Someone bent on exploiting a word brings the subject up, and complains he was injured by the improper use of a word or the failure to translate it correctly. When asked how exactly he would have used or translated the word, he does not give a definitive answer because if he does, he may or may not score a win. And so, he strives to quickly end this discussion, but because he wishes to see the charade continue forever, he avoids ending the exercise altogether; something he does by obfuscating.

And obfuscate is what the editors of the Wall Street Journal have done with the piece they wrote under the title: “Holocaust Denial in Translation” and the subtitle: “What Iran's president really told CNN about Nazis and the Jews.” It was published in the Journal on September 26, 2013.

When you see “Holocaust denial” in the title, and see “What Iran's president really told CNN,” you want to see the editors make a solid case showing beyond any doubt that the president of Iran has denied the Holocaust the way they define the word, or the way it was defined by whomever they choose to quote. But instead of doing this, the Journal editors began their argument by telling the readers that the Iranian news agency Fars translated Mr. Rouhani's remarks differently from CNN.

What seems to upset them most boils down to this: “Nor, contrary to the CNN version, did he utter the word 'Holocaust.' Instead, he spoke about 'historical events.' Our independent translation confirms that Fars got it right.” Yes indeed, Fars got it right. I do not speak Farsi but the Iranians use the Arabic alphabet which I read, and many of their words have Arabic roots. The part in dispute sounds like this: “Ab'aad hawadeth tarikhi.” Except for a grammatical requirement that would make the last word “tarikhi-yah,” this is entirely Arabic. And what it says is “dimensions of historical events.”

And so, the conclusion must be that Mr. Rouhani did not utter the word “holocaust” or “Holocaust” because he was not speaking English. I do not have an English-Farsi dictionary but have several English-Arabic and Arabic-English dictionaries. So I looked up the word holocaust to see what word someone who speaks Arabic might have used.

I found the following: “mahraqa” which translates into incinerator; “zabihah” which translates into throat-cutting; “magzarah bashari-yah” which translates into human butchery; “dahmiah” which translates into felling. So I ask myself and I ask you, dear reader, how do you think the editors of the Wall Street Journal would have reacted to someone using any of these words?

This tells me and should tell you, that under the circumstances, the best thing a reasonable person can do is speak of historical events. This is what Mr. Rouhani did, and if the characters at the Wall Street Journal see a reason here to bellyache about another denial of the Holocaust, I say let them bellyache. And maybe they will want to sit with Marie Antoinette after that and eat cake too because they will not squeeze blood out of a stone.

A Baker of Pies Turned Prophet

Just as the name Elliott Abrams came to be cemented in the minds of people as being synonymous with baker of shit pies, the man is now trying to play the role of prophet. And he wants you to believe that as such, he knows the future – but more than that, he knows what everyone in the world wants. Thus, he can plead the case of every soul on the planet as a retained lawyer who is also in possession of ironclad powers of attorney from everyone to speak in their name as if he were their voices.

He makes this claim in a memo to the court of public opinion, a presentation to which he gave the title: “Obama's U.N. Speech Showed Indifference to Freedom and Religious Minorities in Middle East” which he published on September 24, 2013 in National Review Online. He uses the speech mentioned in the title to tell the world of his new status as baker cum lawyer. That is, he wants the world to know that from maker of smelly stuff, he has become formulator of stinky ideas.

But lest the Muslims of the world come under the impression that he is making their case too this time around, he makes it clear at the outset that he is pleading this case only because “President Obama displayed the tone-deafness to the fate of non-Muslim peoples in the Middle East.” So there you are, Muslims; let it be clear to you that his concern this time is restricted to the fate of Christians, Baha'is and Zoroastrians. Or is it so?

So now that the world knows who Elliott Abrams is, he wants to tell it what he is pitting himself against. It is none other than “Iran, a vicious dictatorship whose regime is rejected by the great majority of that nation's population.” And you know what this means, my friend? It means that he, Elliott Abrams, represents the great majority of the people of Iran. But wait a minute. The combined tally of the Christians, Baha'is and Zoroastrians in Iran does not come anywhere near being the majority of the population. So it must be that he is representing a good part of the Muslim population too which he said he isn't. How does he explain that? Be patient, my friend, you'll get the explanation soon enough.

Moving on with his plea, he wants to give a face to the evil he is combating. Here is how he put it: 'We are not seeking regime change.' Oh no, my dear reader, do not misunderstand this; what Abrams does here is quote President Obama. You see, in formulating the matter this way, he gave evil not one face but two. There is the regime in Iran, and there is Mr. Obama who would not seek to change it. Who then is the aggrieved party in this saga? It is this: “what words of encouragement did he [Obama] have for the Iranian people?” It is the people of Iran. Now you know why he has taken their case including the Muslims among them. Told you, you'll get the answer soon enough.

But what is it that makes Obama so evil? It is that he added insult to injury when he lauded the fact that the regime has committed itself to helping the people meet their extraordinary potential in commerce, culture, science and education. Wow, how bad is that? Very bad, says our newest prophet, because he knows what lurks in the hearts of the Iranian people. It is none of that, he says, it is freedom. It is “freedom, which most Iranians think is a central part of their extraordinary potential.” And this tone deafness is what makes the decline of America's moral leadership under Obama so shocking, he says.

But wait a minute; the American people have grown accustomed to the spin that the Muslims hate freedom. So why is he telling them now that freedom is a central part of the extraordinary potential the Muslims of Iran yearn to achieve? This seems to have happened so suddenly and yet there was not a Reagan to teach them the lesson. Did they, by any chance, learn it from Obama? If so, it may be that the man is not so evil after all.

Having messed up the case he tried to plead after retaining himself on behalf of people who would reject him as fast as they would his shit pies, Abrams returns to his old profession of baking those pies again. Here is how he does that: “The president's speech may cause smiles in Teheran, but in the homes of Iranians … and in the homes and churches of Middle Eastern Christians … the president is more likely to have produced despair.”

Being a Middle Eastern Christian, let me assure you, Elliott that the only time these people will feel despair is if they knew of your plan to franchise your baking operation, and start delivery of your shit pies to their homes and their churches. These people are finicky, you know!

Stay out of their lives and they will not despair.

Presidential Speech Full of Subroutines

In the language of computers, a subroutine is a series of instructions; each meant to execute a given operation. An example would be this: Transfer the text displayed on the monitor to the printer. The subroutine can be called for with a word embedded inside a program, or called for with the click of a mouse pointing at a symbol. In effect, a program that makes up an entire operating system is largely made of subroutines, each of which is dedicated to executing a specific operation – from scanning the keyboard looking for an incoming input, to doing the most complex math operation.

Perhaps it is because we live in the computer age that people tend to think and communicate in ways that, to some extent, resemble the method of computers. We sometimes refer to such method as the bumper sticker approach. The way it works is that the mention of a word or a phrase during a conversation works like the clicking of a symbol on the computer screen. It results in the recall from memory of a set of images and narratives that would be familiar to the participants in the conversation.

More than anywhere else in the world, the North American people have proven to be the most susceptible at thinking and communicating in that style. And more than any other people in the world, the Jews have proven to be most apt at exploiting the method, making it work to their advantage. To verify these assertions, you only need to look at the publications that come under the Jewish influence where you will see the constant repetition of such phrases as: Egypt, where 20 percent of the population lives under the poverty line; Egypt, where the real unemployment rate is double the official rate, and so on. These are the subroutines that come to the mind of the journalists every time they sit down to bang on the keyboard of the computer the latest echo they picked up in the chamber of parrots.

This is also what you detect in most presidential speeches which say that the speeches are written by Jewish speechwriters or by people heavily influenced by them. A case in point is the speech delivered by President Obama at the UN General Assembly on September 24, 2013. In it, he spoke of the need to “send a powerful message” to the countries in the region. The truth is that when the people in the region decide to communicate with each other, they sit down and talk. It is only when they communicate with animals that they choose to send the message by body language or by taking some kind of action. For this reason, they don't like people sending messages to them in that manner, be they powerful messages or muted ones. These people feel insulted when someone tries to send them a message through what they view as the language of animals.

Another Jewish inspired subroutine that annoys the people of the Middle East is to be accused of having a fixation on American conspiracies. The way that something along this line starts is when the Americans openly speak of having ideas and designs for the region, including the possible use of the military to implement them. Most of the time the Americans make no bones about the interest they have in the welfare of Israel to the point of doing anything they deem necessary to protect what they call America's core interest in the region. They say they are adding to the defense capabilities of Israel when the Israelis themselves call it adding to their attack capabilities. If this is not conspiracy, what is it?

The worst part is that the situation does not end with the demonstration that the Arabs have good reasons to be annoyed. This is achieved when they show that the idea of conspiracy is generated by the Americans themselves, and that it is reinforced by the Israelis who work in concert with the Jewish publications produced in America. When this happens, the Americans respond with accusations to the effect that the Arabs have an irrational fear of America taking control of the Middle East. No, say the Arabs, all they want is that the Americans keep their noses out of Arab affairs. No, no, no, say the Americans, the fact is that “You know nossing about za damacracy of za Shamir” and they are here to shove this brand of democracy down the throats of Arabs.

This done, the Americans flatter themselves via a habit that the Jews handed to them on a silver platter. It began at the start of the Jewish control of America when the Americans could still feel the sense of shame. It used to be that when they went too far implementing a Jewish suggestion, normal people expressed annoyance, and the Americans backed off. But the Jews told them not to back off because if people are annoyed, it is not because of something they did or failed to do but because America is powerful, free and has developed a superior way of life. People hate America, said the Jews, because of what it is which is why the Americans must shrug off any and every criticism directed at them. And so the Americans started to say that given America's role in the world, it is inevitable that the world should hate it. And this is what President Obama has echoed in his speech to the UN.

And speaking of Egypt, the President went on to complain: “America has been attacked by all sides of their internal conflict, accused of supporting the Muslim brotherhood and engineering its removal from power. In fact, the United States has avoided choosing sides. Our interest has been to encourage a government that reflects the will of the Egyptian people and recognizes true democracy as requiring a respect for minority rights and the rule of law, freedom of speech and assembly, and a strong civil society. That remains our interest today.”

And there lies the problem. A spokesman from one side or the other of the political divide accusing America of interfering in their struggle is not what the Egyptian population as a whole is accusing America of. What the people are saying has to do with this: “Our [American] interest has been true democracy, a respect for minority rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech and assembly and a strong civil society.” And the worst part is this: “That remains our interest today.”

Well, with all due respect to the American President, the people of Egypt who assembled by the millions to articulate the democratic will of the majority as well as the minorities, are telling America in one united voice: “You can take your damacracy of za Shamir, Uncle Sam, and shove it.” America is not big enough, wise enough, free enough or respected enough to tell them how to establish the rule of law, maintain freedom of speech or create a strong civil society. You have no lesson in this regard to give to the world, America. Begin by freeing yourself of Jewish domination and when you've done this, we might consider discussing governance with you.

The people of Egypt have spoken, and they said to America: “Get out of here and stay out.” And you know what, my friend; this is becoming the subroutine that the people over there are adopting in case their message fails to penetrate the thick skull of the failing Jewish States of America.

Illusions with Blue Smoke and Foggy Mirrors

How do you create a Jewish narrative you can use to sucker and roll the American Congress of idiots, thus begin the process of forcing the administration to hand the foreign policy of the nation to the New-York/Tel-Aviv axis of state terrorism? Well, you tell the story of what could not have happened, compare it with what did not happen, and lament about the lost opportunities that were never there to be had. That's how you do it, and that's what Bret Stephens has done.

Stephens did it this time in a column he published in the Wall Street Journal on September 24, 2013 under the title: “Striking Deals With Despots” and the subtitle: “Stalin played FDR in 1945. Iran's Rouhani now attempts to do the same with President Obama.” He started the column with this question: “Why are democratic leaders so easily suckered and rolled by dictators?” which says that I mimicked him by starting my article the way I did. But why did I do that?

The reason why I did it stems from the fact that the writing style known as parody – which I am using here – is well suited to highlighting the absurdities contained in a narrative if and when such absurdities exist. In our case, I use the parody to help me highlight the absurdities that make up the very foundation upon which most Jewish narratives are constructed. And you can see this reality in the way that Stephens has formulated the rest of his opening paragraph. Just look at this: “...Obama, fresh from getting rolled by Russia … now tempts getting suckered by Hasan Rouhani...”

When someone starts a discussion by asserting something as forcefully as this, you expect him to spend the rest of the discussion proving the points he just made. In the absence of such proof, you try to assess the veracity of the assertions only to realize that the only way the author could have proved them, was to have the Russians come out and openly brag about rolling the Americans, or have Rouhani come out and openly brag about suckering the Americans. And yet, nothing like that happened.

So then, how does he go about buttressing his arguments? Good question, easy answer. He does it the Jewish way which is to use smoke and mirrors. To answer the question, therefore, he tells the story of what he says happened at Yalta shortly after WW II. He does so to prepare for using his version of history as an example to compare against his version of the current situation, thus draw the parallels he hopes will prove his points.

To this end, Stephens sets up a scene with two main characters, Stalin and Roosevelt. Also present is a third character, Churchill, that does not play a major role in this scene. The three sat down to negotiate the future map of Europe, says our columnist, but what they did according to the Poles and to other Europeans was betray them. Not so, says Stephens because “Yalta is more complicated” than that. To explain this, he describes a deal that historians have called the best that could be obtained under the circumstances, to which he agrees.

But Bret Stephens is a Jew and as such, he wants to have it both ways. Having said the equivalent of “tough luck” to the Poles and to the Europeans who had to live under Soviet domination as a result of Yalta, he now wants to attack Roosevelt and the other “democratic leaders.” How can he do that? Well, what he wants to do really is change gear. This will happen if he can start a new paragraph like this: “It didn't turn out like that.” But how does he go from the notion that asserts Roosevelt was correct to the notion that asserts he was incorrect, without someone telling him he is full of whatever?

Well, the way to do it is to insert between the two notions what you might view as the blower of blue smoke. Think of the correct Roosevelt as being one mirror, and Roosevelt the incorrect being the other mirror. To prevent the image of one mirror from reflecting in the other, you insert the blue smoke between them. But who is well placed to be the blower of blue smoke? It would be Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt's closest aide, the one who wrote these words: “The Russians proved they were reasonable, and neither of us had the slightest doubt we could get on peaceably with them.” And that's where Stephens came up with his: “It didn't turn out like that.”

But what is the significance of this? Here is the significance: “Yalta typified a style of American diplomacy that combined idealism with fatal naïveté.” You see, my friend, the Jewish writer has managed to have it both ways using the trick of playing with mirrors and throwing blue smoke. He talked about one thing by talking about another thing to make the reader believe that the two are one and the same. This is so very Jewish! But having done this, he now asks: “Sound like any American president you know?”

Yes, he means to tell the reader that he has Obama in mind but before he gets to him, he clobbers Roosevelt for being naïve and overconfident at the same time, the reason why he trusted Stalin when he shouldn't have. Our writer then relates these realities: “Millions of Americans wept for FDR when he died because he had given them hope. Millions of Russians wept for Stalin when he died because he had given them terror.” What he failed to mention was that no one wept for Stalin as much as did the Jews who affectionately called Joseph Stalin, Uncle Joe. Did the Jews love Stalin's terror? I don't think Bret has the brains to tell one way or the other.

And so the columnist comes to a point where he can draw a parallel with the present: “President Obama has given evidence of his desire to reconcile with autocrats … A deal with Iran's Rouhani is a temptation he is incapable of resisting … Should it happen, as with Yalta, it won't take long to learn who is betrayed, and what is lost, in the service of an illusion.”

What illusion is he talking about? He started saying that Roosevelt got the best deal possible under the circumstances. And yes, in any negotiation, you win some and you lose some. But that's no illusion; it is reality. The illusion is to give the impression you can have it both ways; that you can have your cake and eat it too; that you can have it all.

No you can't. Only a Jew would dream such dreams; and he would chase them for thousand years, never catching any of them. This is pathetic, and the rest of humanity knows better than that. Wake up, Bret.

Ethnicity must Form to Become Exceptional

An example of how the Jewish culture of self-loathing and insecurity is permeating the American culture of self-confidence and satisfaction, can be detected in an article written by David Satter and published in the Wall Street Journal on September 23, 2013. It has the title: “Russia's Anti-American Foreign Policy” and the subtitle: “Putin needs high oil prices and a distraction from his domestic troubles.” Already, you can hear in the “anti-American” of the title an echo of the often repeated anti-Semitism accusation. You can also hear in the subtitle of the article an echo of the Jewish refrain: They hate us because they have problems and they need money.

After an introduction that is nothing more than a cheap diatribe, Satter says something which tells you he does not have the logic of even a child. Here is how that goes: ”Mr. Obama described Mr. Putin as 'sincere, just and deeply interested in the welfare of the Russian people' … The praise was never reciprocated because Russian leaders fear and distrust their own population.” What on earth is he talking about? Is he saying that if, in return, Putin had described Obama as sincere, just and deeply interested in the welfare of the American people, the Russian population will rush forward, serenade Obama and clamor to emigrate to America? What kind of juvenile nonsense is this? Who pays this guy to propagate ideas like these, anyway?

Because you want to assess how much damage an individual like this can cause the culture, you hold your nose and read the rest of the article. When done, you conclude that yes, this mentality could only be of a caliber that doesn't rise above that of a child. You then take a moment to catch your breath and reflect; and you ask yourself what a work like this could do to the sense of exceptionalism that some Americans believe they are endowed with. And this query reminds you of an article that was published a week before, on September 16, 2013 in National Review Online.

That article has the title: “E Pluribus Bonum.” Actually, it is a review written by John Fonte of two books, one of which was written by James C. Bennett and Michael J. Lotus, and the other written by James S. Robbins. The Bennett and Lotus book has the title: “America 3.0: Rebooting American Prosperity in the 21st Century – Why America's Greatest Days Are Yet to Come.” As to the Robbins book, it has the title: “Native Americans: Patriotism, Exceptionalism, and the New American Identity.”

To me, the most interesting point that John Fonte makes about the Bennett and Lotus book is when he quotes them as saying: “Our American culture today is part of a living and evolving organism, spanning centuries.” As to the most interesting point he makes about the Robbins book; it is when he quotes him as saying: “dividing citizens into antagonistic ethnic boxes [leads to] individuals being labeled as members of either a 'victim group' or the 'oppressor class.'” Fonte goes on to say that “Robbins rejects all of this. He argues that we need a definition of American ethnicity that is based on American culture and values.”

And so, if what is forming is an ethnicity that is based on culture when culture itself is viewed as being an evolving organism, a work such as that of David Satter published in a prestigious publication such as the Wall Street Journal, can have a profound effect on society. Indeed, this is how the American sense of feeling exceptional is slowly made to soak in the Jewish schizophrenic sense of being a victimized group wallowing in self-loathing while at the same time facing the accusation of being a member of the class of oppressors.

And so you ask yourself if a way can be found to halt that trend and have it reverse itself. To see how this can be done if at all, we need to do a thought experiment which, in reality, is not too far from how the actual history of this planet has unfolded.

Imagine owning a large piece of real estate that is lightly populated but rich in natural resources and agricultural potential. You put out a notice to the world stating that you seek settlers who would come and help you develop the place. You sit back and watch to see who will respond to the invitation. You find that those who take up the offer will fit into one of two categories of people. There will be those who left behind a war, a famine or an oppressive regime that was gripping the land from which they came. And there will be the adventurers who had grown too large – spiritually if not in materially – to remain in a place that could only hold them back.

The first group will behave like huddled masses happy to work long hours in exchange for the bare necessities of a life they could not have in the old country but missed so badly. The second group will behave like the risk takers who keep trying till they get something done, and done well. What they accomplish may be a small thing or it may be a big thing but will be the sort of thing that will occupy a place in the grand scheme of things. And together, the two groups will have created a society that will project the image of exceptionalism by what it has achieved.

However, if it is true that the tendency exists for people to divide into victims and oppressors as observed by James Robbins, the question remains as to whether or not a society such as that can accomplish exceptional things for too long without deteriorating. And so we must ask: What did actually happen on Planet Earth?

The thing is that the above description applies in Australia and North America (comprising Canada and the United States) only to some extent. It does not apply as well in Central or South America where the indigenous populations were denser and less accommodating; a situation that forced the settlers to mingle with the locals. This created the opportunity for mixed marriages to occur; a development that gave rise to a new ethnicity called Latino. Something like it did not happen in North America where the two groups were kept apart – the natives in reservations, and the immigrants everywhere else. Yes, there has been a number of mixed marriages resulting in a Métis population. But that remained too small to be considered the North American answer to the South American Latino ethnicity.

As to the colonies of Africa and Asia where the indigenous populations were very dense, the description has failed to apply almost everywhere. It is that the locals rejected the invading settlers and fought against them bitterly. The result has been that the settlers were forced to leave in most of the instances, or an accommodation was worked out between the two groups as it happened in South Africa and Zimbabwe. At this time, a new ethnicity seems to be developing in South Africa but things remain unclear in Zimbabwe.

Things remain unclear in America too because the promise that the existing “Melting Pot” was going to create a new American ethnicity is dissolving with the encroachment of a Jewish culture that is permeating it in all of its parts. And so, unless the American people find a way to halt this trend, the long term prospect for America is that of a Balkanized giant that will look exceptional only in the small accomplishments it will score from now on.

Peace Trying to Breakout despite Warmongers

It is not the first time that peace seems to be on the verge of breaking out in the Middle East. It happened on a number of occasions but things turned out less than hoped for each time. To have a better chance at taking the current developments to a good ending, we need to understand how the people who constantly sabotage the chances to bring peace to that part of the world, think and operate.

The history they tell about themselves, whether actual or metaphoric, is that it all began when their old man – their very old man – the one named Abraham decided to take his son to the top of the mountain and slaughter him there. Luckily for the boy, God intervened and told the father to stop the insanity and let the boy live. From that time forward, the people who embraced the way of life called Judaism have had a fixation on the killing of children, be they children of their own, or those belonging to someone else. These people were the Hebrews who later called themselves Jews; and they are the ones slaughtering the children of Palestine according to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.

Their way of life since ancient times has been to maraud the landscape where they raided the sedentary people who farmed the land and fabricated the goods in use at the time. By their own account – told in a book they call the Old Testament or the Jewish Bible – the purpose of their existence is to kill the most defenseless of peoples, and steal the possessions they can carry and run. In fact, in the blood soaked stories they tell; the ones that fill the Jewish Bible from cover to cover, they mention with a sense of exuberance and triumph, the children of the enemies they delight in killing as they rob the places that they do before running to safety.

Thus, while the brothers of the most prominent clan among them saw fit to sell their baby brother, named Joseph, to a nomadic tribe that took him to Egypt where they set him free, it was in Egypt that the boy learned of a way of life that was based not on hate and revenge the way it was among his clan, but based on goodwill and forgiveness the way it was in Egypt. Joseph grew up to become powerful and wealthy at which time he brought to Egypt the brothers that sold him as a baby. And in the land of plenty, of goodwill and forgiveness, the brothers lived well and multiplied for a period of four centuries. But then, like the wild animals that cannot shed their savage instincts, they stayed up one night to commit the most horrible crime in the history of our species. They killed the first born of the families that took them in, robbed the places that sheltered them and fled the country.

Leading them out of Egypt was Moses who, as a baby, was put in a basket by his parents and left to drift on the Nile. A princess of the royal palace spotted him, took him in and raised him well. But being who he is, he turned greedy and wished to rival the Pharaoh by having a nation of his own to rule over. He told the Jews to stay up on that horrible night and commit the crimes that they did. This is how the Jews became a nation, they say; one whose roots are treachery, betrayal, killing and robbery which they brag about and do not deny or repudiate.

Once out of Egypt, Moses took them on a long trek as they searched for a land they can steal from its owners; a land on which to settle and seek to live the life they used to enjoy in Egypt. But this was not to be because the Palestinian people whose land they eventually stole, never gave up trying to retake their occupied homeland. Clashes between the Jewish invaders and the local Palestinians erupted frequently according to the stories of the Old Testament where the storytellers again talk with exuberance and triumph about the children they delighted in maiming, killing or kidnapping. They are who they are, and they never let go of what makes them what they are.

Meanwhile, they had local stories of their own to tell; stories in which their small children featured prominently. One of these is the story of the baby that a certain Solomon wanted to cut into pieces. Another is the story of the baby boys below the age of one year that a certain Herod sent an army of soldiers to kill throughout the land. Going into every household the way that the Jews did in Egypt, Herod's soldiers grabbed the babies and killed them without mercy. Among the babies that were supposed to die but did not, was baby Jesus. It happened that his mother took him to Egypt before the soldiers had arrived. And so, once again Egypt was there to take the children and protect them from the savagery of the Jews.

The current episode of that long saga started a little under a century ago when hordes of Jews that could not get along anywhere in the world decided to get back to the land they kept stealing from its owners, having been kicked out of it and sent marauding around the globe many times before. They came back this time talking peace and promising that all they wanted was a small piece of land where they will contain their hunger for expansion and check their thirst for blood. Needless to say they did not keep the promise anymore than Dracula would have kept the promise to refrain from sucking the blood of his victims.

They started a fight at every opportunity that was favorable to them, especially when a neighbor let their guards down. Thus, amid the human blood they spilled and the bad blood they generated with their neighbors, they were able to expand the boundaries of the small piece of land they promised would satisfy them but never did. And so, the place they call Israel grew larger with the passage of time, a development that gives them heart to speak of a “Greater Israel” that in practice, would encompass all of Palestine.

You can see how this mentality works by reading the article written by Danny Danon who is the deputy defense minister of Israel. The article has the title: “Israel Should Annul the Oslo Accords” and was published in the New York Times on September 21, 2013. The writer begins by reminding the readers it has been “20 years since the signing of the Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO.” He goes on to say it was a mistake, and suggests that “the government of Israel [should] declare the Oslo process to have failed.”

This being the old paradigm, he thought up a new paradigm which he discusses of course, but not before belaboring a Jewish style spin of reality which allows him to reach a set of conclusions that look more danonic than a demon could have made them look demonic. And so, according to the Danon spin, less than 1,500 Israelis died during the 20 years of skirmishes that followed the signing of the Oslo Accords. He calls this mind-boggling without once hinting at the possibility that he has the mental capacity to understand that in a war where the invader possesses advanced weapons with which to kill tens of thousands of indigenous people, the 1,500 that fell from among the invaders boggle the mind only in one deplorable sense. It is that the world has failed to respond, as it should have, by setting up a war crimes tribunal to try the Jewish criminals who refuse to let go of a mentality that grew out of a savage era known to have existed in biblical times.

Finally, Danon spells out his new paradigm. He calls it the “three-state-solution” without one of them being Palestine. Under his plan, Israel will take the West Bank and maintain complete military control over it. As to the Palestinian population, it will have no more autonomy than say, a municipality, because everything else will be administered by Jordan whose government will be responsible for the unrest that will result from the feeling of despair that the Palestinian people will develop. And Danon wants the same deal for Gaza expect that he wants Egypt to take responsibility there. What can be more danonic, more demonic or more Jewish than that? And this is where my Jewish friend would have thrown his arms up in the air and shouted: Light up the oven.

Lucky for us, this is only the mental case that is Danny Danon. But he is not the only game in town because the town has grown larger in a manner that was unforeseen before, and the result has been that more players are participating in the current round. You get a sense of this when you read the article written by Mark Lander and Jodi Rudoren, published in the New York Times on September 21, 2013 under the title: “As It Makes Overtures to Iran, U.S. Strives to Reassure Israel.”

The following is what caused the Lander and Rudoren article to be written in the first place: “Mr. Rouhani has signaled a willingness to negotiate an agreement over the future of Iran's nuclear program.” The truth is that the nuclear program has little to do with the dance we see everyone perform around the subject. In fact, the dance is only the excuse that gives cover for the subject to remain on the dock. This being the case, we understand that the shower of insults unleashed by Benjamin Netanyahu against Iran and Mr. Rouhani, and the give-and-take that was sparked when some American official appeared to play along, are nothing more than smokescreens aimed at the local consumption in each constituency.

So then, what has changed that makes the new situation so important? It is this: “Mr. Rouhani's election has intrigued the White House. Senior officials said he seems to have the authority to negotiate. He also has a broad political mandate in Iran.” And while this is what preoccupies Washington because it touches on American interests, the Israelis are preoccupied with what touches on their interests as shown by this passage: “many Israeli leaders and analysts saw Mr. Obama's zigzag response to Syria … as a bad omen.”

The difference between the two comes out clearly by the way that each side goes about obtaining what they want. The White House being the Executive Branch of the government in charge of foreign policy, it has become aware of something that an engineer or a technician could have told them long ago. It is that a container which is full of something will empty if you keep taking from it no matter how big the container is. And so, like the battery of a car that is full of energy, if you keep taking out of it by starting the car and rejecting the paradigm to replace it by another paradigm without going somewhere, you end up flattening the battery and still go nowhere.

That is exactly what Danon of Israel is asking for, and what the American Congress is responding to when interfered with by a foreign character that pretends to have leverage in matters relating to the way that the American voters are swayed to vote. Thus, you have a passage such as this in the Lander and Rudoren article: “Netanyahu's words were most likely meant for the ears of the members of Congress … Ron Ben-Yishai wrote: 'The Israelis are telling their American counterparts that...'”

The truth is that an America whose battery has been flattened by a Jewish lobby which cares only about Israel, has a White House that is now determined to save it from heading to the scrapyard of history. The two sides are engaged in a quiet war at a time when the White House should be shouting its concern to the American people so that everyone may be drawn into the discussion. Only this method will loosen the Jewish grip on America's throat, and put an end to the practice once and for all.

Otherwise it is going to be a dead American battery and the scrapyard of history.

Must Say it Now That McCain Is Delusional

John McCain says to the people of Russia: “I am not anti-Russian. I am pro-Russian, more pro-Russian than the regime that misrules you today.” McCain said so in writing to the readers of Pravda.ru, an English language website. He said it in an article titled: “Russians deserve better than Putin,” published on September 19, 2013.

Do you know who said something like that on a previous occasion, my friend? It was Alan Dershowitz who said that he was not anti-Palestinian. He was pro-Palestinian, more pro-Palestinian than the Arafat crowd that kept rejecting his formulation for peace. And the people of Palestine understood what Dershowitz was saying: he wanted piece for the Jews and peace for the Palestinians. That is, he wanted the whole piece of the West Bank for the Jews, and wanted the peace of the grave for the Palestinians.

McCain goes on to say that he respects the dignity and right to self-determination of the Russian people which is why they should reject their government and build an economy to benefit the many, not just the powerful few. He does not tell them how they can do this but says he makes that claim because “the Russian people, no less than the Americans, are endowed with inalienable rights.” But how do you get there John? McCain does not answer the question. You know why, my friend? Because America has a 16 trillion dollar debt whereas Russia has nearly a trillion dollars in foreign reserves. Ouch! Maybe America can learn something from Putin's Russia.

McCain goes on to say that “a Russian citizen could not publish a testament like the one he just offered.” Yet, here is the McCain testament published in a Russian publication – and the Putin sky has not fallen on him. People must want to publish something before it gets published, you know John? Did you consider the possibility that no one in Russia sees things the way you do? But how about seeing things in America the way that I, Fred Habachi, do? How about writing an article blasting Alan Dershowitz for interfering with the invitations extended to prominent people who see the situation in the Middle East differently from him? How about telling him to cease and desist having these people dissed or disinvited? Do that, John and have the article published in the Weekly Standard, the National Review Online or the Wall Street Journal – and then we'll talk.

After giving examples of Russian injustice I do not know enough about thus cannot discuss, McCain says that Putin has claimed he wants to restore Russia's greatness at home and among the nations of the world. But McCain scorns that notion asking: “By what measure has he restored your greatness?” And he answers like this: “He has given you an economy based on natural resources. Capital is fleeing Russia, which – lacking a broad-based economy – is considered too risky for investment.”

Now my friend, if you ever wanted to know how and why America came to be the basket case that it is today, here is the reason why. Its own legislative body – upper and lower chambers – is full of hopelessly trivial intellects such as that exhibited by John McCain. The truth is not that industry is fleeing Russia; it is fleeing America. It is not the Russian economy that is being hollowed out; it is the American. It is not the Russians who pay to have their astronauts ferried to the space station by someone else, it is the Americans.

McCain then asks: “How has he strengthened Russia's international stature?” And he answers: “By allying Russia with some of the world's most offensive and threatening tyrannies.” He names a few regimes he does not like, and concludes that Putin “is not enhancing Russia's global reputation. He is destroying it.” And this is where you say to yourself, I have had it! I have been trying to respect this man because of his age and the sacrifices he made for his country, but I must let go of all that. I must now tell it like I see it: John McCain is sinking into senility, and he is turning dangerously delusional. It is that he cannot hear himself or his colleagues cry out that America is losing stature on the world stage to the benefit of Russia – let alone see that America's relationship with Israel is the reason why America is sinking deep into the mud pool of disgrace.

McCain then passes judgment on Putin. Speaking to the Russian people, he says: “[He] doesn't believe … in you.” Hey John, how about believing in the American people more than you do in Netanyahu's god given right to dictate to the mob of riffraffs that makes up the American congress of idiots? You know what John, Netanyahu rules for himself, not you or your people. Get that through your thick skull.

He ends by saying that he longs for the day when the Russian people will have the government that believes in them. And I can hear the Russian people reply: If you mean something like your congress, we hope that day will be long in coming. Better yet, never come at all.

The Era of Central Banks as Pawnshops

In light of Ben Bernanke's reluctance to “taper” the buying of bonds – something he promised he will do by now but then seems to have changed his mind – it is beginning to look like America is entering a new era and dragging the world with it. Bernanke is chairman of the central bank in the world's largest economy whose currency, the dollar, also happens to serve as the world's reserve currency. Thus, America's influence is sizable, and what happens there is bound to become the template that the rest of the world will want to emulate.

What is happening in America and apparently will continue to happen for a while longer, is that the central bank maintains the posture of pawnshop to the nation. Being the bank of last resort, the Fed, as it is affectionately called, will continue to buy anything that anyone will convert into a bond. It is the Fed's way to make sure that plenty of cash is pumped into the financial system, a move that Bernanke sees as necessary to prevent the economy, whose growth is already anemic, from shrinking even further.

But all this must have ramifications too difficult to predict at this time with any certainty. All we can do is remind ourselves of what money is, and how it came to be. We should then keep our eyes open, and follow closely the events as they unfold. Maybe it will happen someday that someone will see a danger gather in the distance, and sound the alarm to tell the world of a looming disaster before it strikes.

As it happens in all such cases, the danger that may come – if it comes – will strike the currencies. So we ask: What's the worth of a currency like say, the dollar for example? Well, it all depends on how much of it is in circulation, and how much the people that want it clamor to own it. That is, it all depends on the supply-demand equation. But because a number of problems have cropped up in the past with printed (or fiat) money, some people have called for a return to the gold standard. To understand what that is; indeed to understand what money is, we need to go back to when human beings started to trade with each other.

As hunters and gatherers, members of the same family or the same clan or tribe shared everything that the group was able to assemble in a given day. But there came a time when a group such as that, needed to make peace or start a cordial relation with other groups and so, to demonstrate their goodwill, the groups exchanged gifts. That is, if one group had a surplus of something, it was happy to exchange it for the surplus of another family or clan or tribe.

When the goods and services that were ready to be exchanged became more varied, the pleasantries of trading gifts with nearby neighbors evolved to become the necessity to barter goods and services with people that came from far away bearing a larger variety of goods or services such as entertainment and fortune telling. They all assembled in the same marketplace where they haggled as each individual sought to obtain the most in exchange for giving away the least. Here, for the first time, the supply-demand equation played a role in determining the value of the items being traded.

Eventually, the precious metals and other artifacts became the items that people chose to exchange for goods or services. The trend may have started when they were exchanging products they gathered from nature, but the choice turned out to be a useful method when the humans advanced a few more notches and started to fabricate some products. This was the time when people who learned to make elaborate products such as shoes, clothes, pottery or furniture opened their own shops where they made and sold products in exchange for the precious metals. These people were the tradesmen and the craftsmen that made the mercantile era.

Up to this point, people were in control of their economic well being. That is, the harder they worked, the more they produced and the more they owned of what they could exchange for what they did not have. Then came the printed money, and the control of one's economic destiny passed to someone else. It went to those who printed the money and those who were close to them. Having an easier access to money, these people had a more direct influence on the economy than the trades and crafts people who produced the goods and services forming the economy in the first place.

The bankers and the employees of other financial institutions are now the people in control of the economy, and the ones who receive the cash that the central banks print and hand to them in exchange for bonds that may or may not represent the value assigned to them. In fact, the banks which, in times past, were required by law to have a set reserve in gold, no longer have this restriction. They borrow as much as they want from the central bank in exchange for bonds to which they themselves assign a “fair value” which they say is determined by the supply-demand equation.

The trick, however, is that both the supply and the demand parts of the equation are set by the people who package and sell the bonds. They and their colleagues of the same financial institutions buy and sell the bonds inside a bubble where they often take something worth little, and make it look attractive enough to soak to the central bank that has become a pawnshop, in exchange for good money.

Keep your eyes open, my friend for, you may be the first to see danger gather in the distance, and sound the alarm to wake us up to the fact that good money may no longer be as good as it looks.

Exceptionally Idiotic Notions

Never mind American exceptionalism; what we should be talking about is American intellectualism. We should be discussing how low it has sunk from the days when giant thinkers used to dominate the American debates to the midgets we have today. What we see now are people like Rich Lowry and Dennis Prager who make you weep at the smallness of their intellectual capacity, and the shallowness of what is there.

Remember what happened when President Obama said that America was exceptional in the same way that the Greeks and others think of themselves as exceptional? Well, let me remind you. People such as Rich Lowry flooded publications like National Review Online with pieces expressing the opinion that exceptional means unique, which means that only one can be viewed as exceptional, and this happens to be America.

How long did that last? It lasted till Vladimir Putin of Russia remarked that nobody was exceptional. So now you want to know: What happened as a result of that remark? And the answer is: The tiny brains in America that used to say only America was uniquely exceptional, have lunged forward and barked something to the effect that there are exceptional nations; Russia being one of them. This being the case, they found themselves obligated to make a distinction between American exceptionalism which they say is of the good variety, and Russian exceptionalism which they say is of the bad variety.

You get a sense of all this when you read two articles published on September 17, 2013 in National Review Online. The first article was written by Rich Lowry who happens to be the editor of the publication, under the title: “The Dangers of Russian Exceptionalism” and the subtitle: “Putin scorns American exceptionalism because he epitomizes Russia's tradition of autocracy.” The second article was written by Dennis Prager under the title: “Yes, We Are the World's Policeman” and the subtitle: “U.S. troops around the world are the greatest preserves of liberty and peace in the world.”

Lowry begins his article with a bang that is big, but that is nowhere near being equal to the Big Bang in terms of the intellectual energy it is able to dissipate. Look at what follows and marvel not for, it is not worth marveling over: “Russian exceptionalism is one of the profoundest forces in world history.” It seems that our esteemed writer is confusing Russian exceptionalism with the Russian Revolution whose reverberation has had profound effects on world history. And in being so confused, he demolishes his own thesis about autocracy being more powerful than the Russian quest for freedom which, according to him, contrasts with the American Revolution that got rid of autocracy and replaced it with an exceptional form of government.

Referring to Russian exceptionalism, he writes: “Without it, not nearly as many people would have been sunk in tyranny for centuries and immiserated.” He then makes the contrast: “If you want to understand the essence of American exceptionalism, you can quote Patrick Henry … If you want a taste of the Russian version, you can do worse than the anecdote about Czar Nicholas II who was asked by a Western diplomat about regaining public confidence. The czar wanted to know whether he was supposed to regain the confidence of the people or the other way around.”

This is the sort of passage that brings to the fore a number of ideas when you read it. The first thing that happens is that you wonder if the “Western” diplomat was French. Because if he were, the question to ask will have to be: How does the remark of the czar compare with Marie Antoinette's: “Let them eat cake.” And after you get your answer, the next question to ask would be this: “If Russian exceptionalism immiserated people, was the misery worse than the slavery which American exceptionalism brought to a race of people that happens to have a different skin color?

Poor Rich Lowry, you feel for the man who had to quote so many people trying to convince his readers that American exceptionalism was truly exceptional. But where did that labor get him in the end? Well, like goes the old saying: It is the story of the mountain that labored, and gave birth to a mouse. And here is the Lowry mouse: “As Bennett and Lotus demonstrate … American exceptionalism [grew] out of organic English roots: the nuclear family, the common law, representative government, constitutional limits on the state, and private ownership of land.” Hey, this sounds like Canada, Australian and dozens of other countries. Are we all uniquely exceptional? Or exceptional each in our own way. What do you say, Barack Obama?

But then comes Dennis Prager, the Jew, and says forget all that. He has other ideas which he spells out in his article. He does not take exception with Obama's understanding of exceptionalism; he takes exception with his emphasis “that America is not the 'world's policeman'” to which even he has noticed “most Americans agree.” And this means that as a Jew, he has a role for America that is contrary to the wish of the American people.

How does he try to convince Americans of his view? Well, he deploys his own bang which is even smaller than the Lowry bang. It is the old and warn out warning that rejecting the Jewish advice “assures catastrophe both for the world and for America.” Really? Yes, he says, and it's “easy to demonstrate.” To do so, he uses the metaphor of cities not being able to pay for a police force, thus decide to go without one. Prager describes the chaos that will follow, and the order of thugs that will take over. This same thing will happen to the world, he says, if America ceases to be its policeman. Lest he scare the American people in a counterproductive way, he backs off a little and concedes that “America never policed the whole world, nor is it feasible to do so.”

So then what does he want? Well, he does not answer this question right away because he wants to prepare the reader first. So he starts by lauding America before damning everyone else. Here is the laud: “America's strength and willingness to use it has been the greatest force in history for liberty and world stability.” If you've been listening to the Jewish narrative lately, you would recognize this as the point they have been peddling for a while now. Usually it sounds something like this: “Must put on the table a credible threat to use force.”

And this is his damnation of everyone else: “This will be followed by the violent death of more and more innocent people around the world, economic disruption and social chaos … the most vile individuals and groups will dominate within countries and over entire regions.” He concludes that the world needs a policeman, and asks who might that be. He mentions what he regards as being the most likely alternatives, including the United Nations but rejects them all – especially the unmentionable Europeans who “are preoccupied with being taken care of by the state.”

This leaves the United States as the only nation capable of policing the world, he says. The trouble is that “Americans are retreating into isolationism because of what they perceive as wasted American lives and treasure.” But no, says the Jew, this is a false perception “it is leaving – not fighting – that will lead to failures.” To convince the reader of this, he does something that only a Jew would do; he plays the role of prophet and soothsayer. This being the case, he can tell what would have happened if America had left Japan, South Korea and Germany – bad things, he says. But look at Vietnam, he goes on to say, America did leave and the result has been that the communists imposed a reign of terror and committed genocide in Cambodia.

Well, this is a Jewish style mutilation of history because the Vietnamese entered Cambodia to end the genocide that was being committed by the Cambodian Khmer Rouge. And having unified their own country – which is what they fought against the French and then the Americans to do – they forgave the Americans and became good friends with them. In contrast, Japan is having trouble with China, South Korea is having trouble with North Korea, and Germany is distancing itself from America. Thus contrary to what Prager says, the place where the American troops were forced to evacuate, is where things turned out okay. And where the American troops have stayed to “preserve liberty and peace” is where trouble has persisted for decades with no end in sight. As usual, therefore, Prager the Jew is providing a mutilated and dyslexic view of history.

To end, he does another thing that is Jewish through and through. He speaks of “we” to sound like saying we, Americans when in fact, he only means we, the Jews. He also speaks of policing the world having denied previously that he means policing the whole world – but then comes back to single out the region he has in mind: the Middle East where Israel is situated. Here is that revealing passage: “We have no choice but to be the world's policeman … In the meantime, the American defeat by Russia, Syria and Iran means that the country that has been the greatest force for good is perilously close to abandoning that role.”

Now you know why the American people are tired not only of war, but tired of the people who constantly lead them to war, destruction, ruin, loss of prestige and loss of respect.

Americans are saying enough is enough. The Jews are saying: You will no longer be exceptional if you cease to burn at both ends like a candle that is meant to serve Israel and world Jewry.

And the American people are replying: Screw exceptionalism.